stating that the “ ‘reasonableness of a construction can often be tested by considering the consequences of a different one’ ”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the “ ‘reasonableness of a construction can often be tested by considering the consequences of a different one’ ”
- detailing the District's historic avoidance of "adopt[ing] a moving conformity whereby subsequent Federal income tax law changes would automatically be adopted by the District"
- acknowledging that where the statutory language is ambiguous, we examine the statute’s legislative history for assistance
- "the District currently does not conform with federal law as it does not subject individuals to taxation on their receipt of Social Security benefits"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEBEKER, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
If my view were the holding of the court, I am sure an equally as complex rationale as the majority opinion could be written. However, it is hardly worth the candle to undertake such an effort in a dissent. Therefore, I offer a short version of why I would reverse the trial court on the ultimate question of law.
The relevant statute taxes “sale of or charges for ... public stenographic services.” D.C.Code § 47-2001(n)(l)(H) (1981). 1 With all due respect to the majority for its wrestling with the word “public” and generating an ambiguity in the statute, I find the critical clause quite clear. It imposes a tax on sales or charges for stenographic services to the public. Similarly, § 47-2001(n)(l)(F) taxes admission charges respecting “public events,” with an exception for admission charges made by a “semipub-lic institution.” There is no mystery in the word public.
That Acme renders stenographic services cannot be gainsaid. That it does so by sale or charge is equally unquestioned. That it does so to the public — not privately or “semipublic[ly]” — is quite clear to me. I would reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment for the District of Columbia.
. It seems to me that the constant use of the term "court reporting services” in Acme’s brief and the majority opinion is quite confusing unless it is understood that it is synonymous with the relevant term "stenographic services.”